the graphic card of the new i mac is better

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 116
    primprim Posts: 33member
    I tried to make a comparison between all GeForce models, it is not simple. As you can see, the cards in the PowerMac G4 and in the iMac G4 could be better (all nVidia GPUs are Mac-compatible since GeForce2 MX. But GeForce256 and GeForce2, older cards, are only for PC).

    I don't list the nVidia "Quadro" cards, which are professional versions of their GPUs, for high-end 3D workstations (think Maya).



    The better... on the top :



    GeForce4 Ti 1000 (DDR-128 bit, february 2002)

    GeForce4 Ti 500 (DDR-128 bit, february 2002)

    GeForce3 Ti 500 (DDR-128 bit)

    GeForce4 MX (DDR-128 bit, february 2002)

    GeForce3 (DDR-128 bit, the first, Power Mac BTO option)

    GeForce3 Ti 200 (DDR-128 bit)

    GeForce2 Ultra (DDR-128 bit)

    GeForce2 Pro (DDR-128 bit)

    GeForce2 GTS (DDR-128 bit)

    GeForce2 MX 400 (DDR-128 bit)

    GeForce256 DDR (128 bit)

    GeForce2 MX SDR (128 bit, the first, PowerMac G4)

    GeForce2 MX DDR-64 bit (iMac LCD ?)

    GeForce2 MX 200 (SDR-128 bit)

    GeForce256 SDR (128 bit)
  • Reply 42 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

    <strong>Ahhh, 2 peas in a pod.



    Does it boot? Does it run? Does it draw to the screen? Does it display OpenGL?



    Ummm, yes to all of the above. The platform looks supported to me, and I have 2 of them a Bondi and a Wallstreet. I'd rather see the OS move forward than spend time on a technologically obsolete driver in the new OS. Boot into 9 if you want to play an acceleration required game, that's how your machine was designed. Anything more is bonus.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    spend what time? you really think having a programmer or two out of apple's hundreds work for a month on a opengl hardware acceleration driver would hurt OS X's advancement?



    [ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
  • Reply 43 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    spend what time? you really think having a programmer or two out of apple's hundreds work for a month on a opengl hardware acceleration driver would hurt OS X's advancement?



    [ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    These's a whole thread on this subject in the MacOS X forum. You can go over there and read why I think you're over simplifying. You're assuming that it is possible to implement a compliant OpenGL driver on the old crappy Rage2/Pro chips.
  • Reply 44 of 116
    the imac has never been a gamer's machine...it's a machine that occasionally plays games. i can't speak to the performance of one board over another, but they've increased the VRAM by 400% and the new card draws 600% more polygons. isn't that enough improvement to play most games comfortably??
  • Reply 45 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>



    These's a whole thread on this subject in the MacOS X forum. You can go over there and read why I think you're over simplifying. You're assuming that it is possible to implement a compliant OpenGL driver on the old crappy Rage2/Pro chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    it was possible to implement a compliant OpenGL driver on OS 9 therefore it has to be on OS X.



    and if it were technically impossible why did Apple string us along and then just announce that they had no plans for support?
  • Reply 46 of 116
    Being that even the Mx cards are bandwidth starved, DDR would be a significant improvement.
  • Reply 47 of 116
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    That is a pretty good gaming card. It'll play anything that comes out over the next two years quite well.



    So long as frame rates stay in the 30-60 range you're doing well. You won't see more than that, and the card is never going to be asked to draw more than 1024 x 768. At that resolution it will be nearly indistinguishable from higher-end cards.



    Besides nVidia is set to release a 3MX that is supposedly going to be 'cheaper' and faster than 2. We'll see it by the second revision.
  • Reply 48 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>That is a pretty good gaming card. It'll play anything that comes out over the next two years quite well. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I doubt it.
  • Reply 49 of 116
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    MAybe I should say mac games over the next two years.



    1024 x 768 is all it has to drive. No problems. If it were driving 1600 x 1200 then sure it's suffering already, but at normal XGA res it's not going to be a problem. Even heavy 3-d games still run on ATI rage graphics. Only a few current games REQUIRE even 16MB and this card has 32MB DDR memory.



    When the 17" LCD appears this time next year, we'll se a nice bump to teh graphics system too. Probably 4x AGP and the forthcoming GF3MX.
  • Reply 50 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>

    it was possible to implement a compliant OpenGL driver on OS 9 therefore it has to be on OS X.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No it was not possible!! Who said the OS 9 driver was compliant?! Every game that works on those chips has to handle all sorts of weird cases to make it work, and the visual results are less-than-stellar. These chips have been holding back graphics for every game that has to support them. The situation on MacOS X is worse because the resource sharing aspects of the OS put more pressure on the available graphics resources -- the old chips just can't keep up. So rather than cursing all future OpenGL software on X with this hideous legacy, they've decided to cut it off.



    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>

    and if it were technically impossible why did Apple string us along and then just announce that they had no plans for support?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Who knows? Sometimes things just get put off until they can't be put off any longer... I think they're rearchitecting OpenGL (finally) to make it competative with DirectX 8&9 (which don't support those chips either, by the way) and they finally took a close look at what implementing drivers on each chipset would involve.



    Part of the reason that video drivers on the Mac have always sucked is because the whole architecture for them sucks. Apple never designed a good system for it, and thus it has always been rather cobbled together. I had hoped that MacOS X would correct this, but so far it has not -- the CPU is still doing way too much work, hence Aqua is slow. My guess (and hope) is that Apple is finally fixing it, and now that they've done the careful design work they've discovered what I've been saying for years... these older graphics chips are terrible.



    [ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
  • Reply 51 of 116
    Bah. Apple could write drivers. They don't care enought too. They could also refund moeny to people that got the bait and switch. But they wont. Because Apple is a shity company. I wont be buying hardware from a company that can't write a friggen graphics card driver for their own computer.
  • Reply 52 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]No it was not possible!! Who said the OS 9 driver was compliant?! Every game that works on those chips has to handle all sorts of weird cases to make it work, and the visual results are less-than-stellar. These chips have been holding back graphics for every game that has to support them. The situation on MacOS X is worse because the resource sharing aspects of the OS put more pressure on the available graphics resources -- the old chips just can't keep up. So rather than cursing all future OpenGL software on X with this hideous legacy, they've decided to cut it off.<hr></blockquote>



    Quake 3 was held back because it supports the rage pro graphic chipset <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 53 of 116
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Scott the broken record.
  • Reply 54 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by jimmac:

    <strong>Scott the broken record. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    yea, he is overdoing a a bit.



    if there is seriously a technical reason why it can't be done I would love to hear it. but so far nothing supports Apple's logic
  • Reply 55 of 116
    Scott H: yawn ... relentless .... monotonous .... troll. Nothing to say, so he trolls.



    I am not sure why you spend so long defending Apple against him.



    If you want to play games all the time then buy a console!



    Hewligan
  • Reply 56 of 116
    cobracobra Posts: 253member
    Hell, there are still PC's shipping with lesser video than the iMac.



    Sony's fancy Vaio desktop with the burner, Mini-Disc, and that LCD display on the front ships with a TNT2!



    Many ship with built in Intel crap.



    I still see the Rage in new PC's.
  • Reply 57 of 116
    You have to be some kind of pansy tool to be worried about jack with a Rev. A/B iMac, especially games.



    Runs OSX and that is about all Apple ever promised.



    Baby boys should go squeeze bricks out of their buttholes on other forums or get their Jerk on gazing at Billy Gates photos.
  • Reply 58 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ventral:

    <strong>You have to be some kind of pansy tool to be worried about jack with a Rev. A/B iMac, especially games.



    Runs OSX and that is about all Apple ever promised.



    Baby boys should go squeeze bricks out of their buttholes on other forums or get their Jerk on gazing at Billy Gates photos.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    the pinnacle of maturity.



    thank you

  • Reply 59 of 116
    You're welcome.



    I guess it is a lot more mature to complain about a company not supporting OGL on OSX for ancient hardware that nobody except whiners, malcontents and anal retentive freaks care about.
  • Reply 60 of 116
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]I guess it is a lot more mature to complain about a company not supporting OGL on OSX<hr></blockquote>



    It sure is.



    I'm disappointed that the GF2MX isn't upgradable, but then again there's not much to upgrade it with except a Radeon or $500 GF3.



    I really think Apple shouldn't charge double for it's GF3 over PC graphics manufacturers.



    [ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: MacAddict ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.